Memory Alpha talk:Content policy/Canon policy archive
The dilemma: * Memory Alpha is a reference source. We need to have a definitive set of source materials in order to provide a reliable set of information for fans. * But... Trek isn't worth much without its fan contributions. It's ultimately only what we make of it. * Not all fans have read or seen everything. Adding too much information in some articles would overdo things. I think what we need is to have some kind of dividing line. Even though articles like James T. Kirk won't have blow-by-blow accounts of everything that happened. I'm not sure how feasible this would be, but I think that the canon episode articles need to be only canon. Other articles for novel or game stuff would be separate. Would that work? MinutiaeMan 20:38, 26 Nov 2003 (PST) ---- I think we should base Memory Alpha on strictly canon sources. Otherwise everything could very quickly dissolve into a chaos of uncontrollable facts and conjecture. But there is no problem with mentioning secondary (ie everything that is not a ST episode) sources strictly separated in an article. So you could have a normal, strictly canon article on James T. Kirk, with a section called something like Other adventures with things like "In Marvel Comics #212, Kirk fought a Bug Eyed Monster from another galaxy" (that's just an example of course ;)). Harry 14:23, 29 Nov 2003 (PST) The problem with that, however, is that once you start writing an "Other Adventures" section in Kirk's article, there will have to be wiki links to other relevant topics. Many of those articles will be based completely on non-canon info; and THAT'S where things will get confusing! -- MinutiaeMan 07:53, 12 Dec 2003 (PST) ---- Perhaps there's a compromise. I don't know enough about Wiki to say for sure, but is there a way to alter the color of text or something like that; that would allow the separation of cannon and non-cannon material within each article. Are there plans to cite every fact (i.e. Spock gave blood to Sarek To Babel) If that's the case, then could citing be enough to distinguish? Just some thoughts -- Thunderbyte 07:13, 16 Dec 2003 (EST) :Certainly, citing non-canon sources would be a necessary thing. I don't think the DITL-like text-coloring would really help in distinguising canon from non-canon. Anyway, at least for the foreseeable future, we'd like to limit MA to canon. Just to get a canon basis of information and a 'trusted' core of editors. In the future, we might open up to the entire expanded Trek universe. -- Harry 07:34, 16 Dec 2003 (PST) ---- Perhaps we could create seperate canon and non-canon sections. Have the cannon sources first and at the end of each article have links to that charcters non-cannon section. And at the begenning of each non-cannon article have a link to the cannon article. That is if the software will allow us to do this. - tiepilottillard1701 17:26, 16 Dec 2003 (PST) ---- State of canon July 2004: Memory Alpha's article namespace is still free of most all non-canon. However, apocryphal (non-canon) data is still being included in articles, in separate sections. This keeps the pages informative, but makes a clear distinction what is the article and what is not. Meta articles (those about Trek from a real life or production perspective, abound, and remain informative and fairly non-biased and neutral. As this wiki's editing continues, there are a few places where the ever growing and changing Memory Alpha:Canon Policy are being tested. I'll list them, in case anyone wishes to continue discussions about them (if you follow a link and post on a talk page, put a link back to it here please so that archivists may keep up with the discussion, sign with 3 or 4 tildes if you please ('~~~' '~~~~')). *The writings of Rick Sternbach **The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual is pretty well accepted as a canonical data source around here. After about season four of TNG, the producers pretty much accorded this manual "factual status." Latter season dialogue is peppered with technical quotations that are usually lifted directly from this manual by producers and scriptwriters alike. However, we have usually not referenced the manual in completion, we have simply used data from it which referenced canonical articles (example: we have used TNG TM data in the type-15 shuttlepod article because the shuttlepod depicted in the book was seen in canon oncreen appearance, but we haven't created new articles for type-9a cargo shuttle and type-16 shuttlepod). However, starship data from the manual transfers over differently. We recognize USS Hokkaido with an article without an oncreen mention. Does this mean we should include equipment, aforementioned shuttles and species information from the Tech Manuals? Sternbach's other works are in issue: ***'USS Gih'lan' has been deleted, since it was not canonically mentioned, it was only mentioned in an article Sternbach wrote for Star Trek: The Magazine. However, we still have USS Hauck from a different writing in the same source? Should we recognize both, or neither? ****ok, so USS Hauck is deleted --Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:07, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST) *The writings of Franz Joseph **Star Fleet Technical Manual This is topically a similar situation. Technical information, but this book was commissioned, not made by production personnel. However, it was regarded with canonical consideration and honored onscreen with similar references as its TNG descendant. However, bad business dealing between Gene Roddenberry and F.J. made Roddenberry bitter to the point where, the next time Roddenberry had creative control of a Trek production, he instruction technical and creative staffs to not only disregard this, but to attempt to disprove this. So we are bound to honor the later canonical references and disregard anything that has been disproven. However, there is some resistance to including neutral (unproven but uncontradicted) technical data from here (such as tech and history on USS Columbia and such..).. One point I argued was the existence of the Cygnus-class, however I am willing to admit now that a more neutral interpretation might be required under current policy (the actual TM is ambivalent on these 'subclasses' so interpretation is possible, but not desirable in an attempt to remain unbiased...). I'll withdraw one of my edits about that class that has been the center of a factual accuracy dispute. *The writings and graphics of Michael Okuda and company. **OK, Okuda wrote the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology and is a great artistic influence on all post movie era productions. However, he was a little careless in "filling in the blanks" in his writings and illustrations. Many of the registries, biographies and techology he has been responsible for have been disproven by dialogue and later references. They are a rough estimate only, and many of the silly registry problems and unreferenced class names which frequently turn contradictory are from his judicious "rethinking" of trying to fill blanks that might have been better left blank. However, we keep most of his registries and ship info, simply because no contradiction would ever be offered by a canonical production. The creative staff honors all his lists (even when they are typos...). **The registry numbers of the Constitution class.. Okuda used the FASA registries derived from Greg Jein's really silly Court Martial chart reading that was published in fanzines in the 70s. One of the main reasons he did this, was that the studio wanted F. Joseph's book disproven, so none of his registries were desirable to use. This site sometimes uses them in article bodies, sometimes does not. Would we like to see the Okuda numbers recognized as official article-space, or restrict all of them to footnotes.. **I found some Excelsior studio model pics labeled USS Hood NCC-2541. This indicates that Okuda must've completely missed the ILM use of the model for early TNG appearances, because he assigned it the registry NCC-42296 commonly seen in the mission status charts, and such. Since the Hood was accidentally labeled with Lakota's registry in its CGI appearances, the commonly accepted 42296 has possibly never been seen onscreen! I'm being an agitator here, it's been weeks since there's been discussion about the canon issues in these articles. (some might percieve this treatment as "uneven" since i'm taking a few different positions on the ways these articles have evolved. I think i'm testing the boundaries and it pays for me to be a little unpredictable when debating here, since some of these debates are quite useful in determining future content... )--Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:09, 20 Jul 2004 (CEST) A question here... (Stoney3K) Should we include a separate section (possibly under Trekkies or Star Trek Fandom) to include several fan-made series and maybe an RPG index of some sort? If we put it under a separate set of articles, we needn't make any changes to the existing articles as they are now, only possibly a few edits where canon characters are being used in fan fiction, and even those can be left out if not wanted, and we still can cover the entire "large" Star Trek universe. :For the foreseeable future, no. It's hard enough trying to fill in the enormous amount of data that will be given for canon sources, let alone what would happen if we were to allow that. Everyone is familiar with the canonical sources, but adding non-canon would lead to accuracy problems and problems distinguishing between canon and non-canon. Therefore, Memory Alpha is restricted to canon articles, with the exception of Meta-Trek articles on the books, comics etc. (restricted only to the items themselves, and not data points emerging from them). We're starting to see apocrypha creep in as it is, which I'm not particularly happy about, since that then begets the question of what can be added in that area. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:28, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST) Contradicting canonical information? What if two canonical information contradict each other? Which one should be used in the main body of an article? The one that was more prominently featured in an episode or the one that makes more sense? And what about canonical information that isn't contradicted by anyhting but we know it is based on an error/oversight.--62.46.68.31 22:56, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT) :If both bits of information are equally valid (both really are first-hand information, no speculation or assumptions based on such info), then use both and make note of that discrepancy in a short comment (an indented and italicized paragraph) without adding too much own speculation. -- Cid Highwind 23:03, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)